Regarding the president's BC: Houston, we have a problem

[jmowreader]

Our friends over in the snake pit claim the president's BC is fake because "there are layers in it" and because "it looks new."

I found and downloaded the PDF, then opened it in Illustrator (as one of the freepers did) and...well, they're right and they're wrong.

They're right about the layers. They're wrong about it being fake.

Here's the deal: It appears to me that Hawaii binds its "vault" birth certificates into books--which is about the only way they could deal with that many of them. You look at the BC and you'll see the left side is curved down, like someone stuck the book in a flatbed scanner and pushed down on the lid to make it as flat as they could.

When you scan something in, it is never as crisp and nice as you want it to be. In the case of a 50-year-old typewritten record, the text is gray and so are the signatures. Also, an old document will have a really faded background. If they would have just scanned it in and punched it up as one entity, either the background or the text would have gone to hell.

The correct way to do this is to separate the text from the background and correct them separately. This is what they did. Printers everywhere do the same thing--not because they're trying to fool anyone, but because the job looks better if you do it. If you hide the text layer, you can see the little artifacts around the letters (caused, in part, by a typewriter making a letter-shaped impression in the paper when the letter is struck into place) that are almost impossible to fake, and they're all exactly where it should be.

Other observations:
This was typed on a manual (not an "electric") office typewriter. Look at the word HUSSEIN: the letters are all at slightly different heights. It looks to me like whoever typed this up didn't use her caps lock and couldn't maintain perfectly constant pressure on the shift key. Also check out the "K" in "Kansas"--it's up high enough part of the letter is off the edge of the ribbon. You would have to go to a LOT of trouble to 'shop this many flaws into a fake document and most people wouldn't think to. So this is a legitimate document.

Turn your attention now to the background with the registrar's stamp and date. The state released the document on Monday, April 25. The White House dropped the document on Wednesday, April 27. To fake this document in the manner the teabaggers are suggesting would have taken more than one or two days. Once again, this is a legitimate document.

Which, of course, will not matter to the birther freaks.

[gateley]

1. They're more than 'birther freaks' -- they're racists, so you're right, it won't matter. nt

[calimary]

2. Just Sore Losermen of a different stripe - the RACIST stripe.

[csziggy]

3. I'm not sure the "layers" are original

The green patterned background seems more recent than the original image information as if the original had been typed on a white background form has been recently scanned, then printed on green patterned paper. Then THAT copy was scanned to a PDF to be posted on the internet.

Does anyone know when the use of patterned background paper was begun? It seems to me it was not until copy machines became very common so as to prevent alterations to things like checks and official documents, sometime in the 1970s.

[jmowreader]

8. Good catch.

I just went back to the file and looked at the background EXTREMELY closely.

The original form is probably white. In the place where the background image should curve down--where the paper is bound into the book--the pattern is straight.

So...best guess: they scanned the BC and used the "magic wand" to select the white background. After deleting the background, they laid it over the green patterned paper with the state registrar's signature on it, punched up the black type and sent it to the internets. If you look close at the black type in the "type" layer, you can see that it got fatter--which is exactly what happens when you darken type in Photoshop.

Basically, they wanted to make the thing look the best they could. Nothing nefarious about it at all, but the birthers are screaming about the layers and claiming it's fake based on them, which it isn't.

[csziggy]

12. Or they simply printed a scan of the original on the green paper

Then certified it and sent it off to the White House. There would be no reason to do it all digitally.

Now many scanners automatically do corrections - unless you specifically set them not to - so the image correction would be a natural result of the scan of the original.

[GKirk]

4. I can't agree with this part...

..."Also, an old document will have a really faded background."

I wouldn't expect fading because the document hasn't been exposed to air or light
while in the bound book.

[jmowreader]

9. I would

In the 1960s they didn't know about acid free paper, which gets a tinge to it just from existing.

[KurtNYC]

5. the problem we have is racism

and releasing a BC is not going to solve that one.

This about divide and conquer -- getting half the peasants to hate and fight the other half.

[elana i am]

6. i'm sure it's real too

but i also opened the pdf in illustrator and all the pasted in pieces sure don't help enhance its authentication any.

whatever intern peon IDIOT who was tasked with taking care of this sure did a bang-up job making it looked as doctored as possible.

it should have been released as a jpg or a jpg converted to a pdf but not released with the cobbled together pieces and parts all hanging out there plain as day.

IDIOTS.

[Horse with no Name]

7. Let me tell you about MY birth certificate

I do have the long form. I've had it for over 30 years. It's ridden through boxes for more moves than I care to count, been crammed in dresser drawers, taken for rides in my purse on occasion--and it is still in really good shape.

I would post a scan but I can't redact enough information to keep myself anonymous and not only that--if I redacted you wouldn't see how crisp and clear the text still is. After all this time.

[kenny blankenship]

10. OK so put the original down on a photo table and shoot it with a static camera

Probably that's what they should have done in the first place, but the office workers in Hawaii's record dept. can't be faulted for not being able to put themselves in the heads of birthers. The existence of the document is in the first place what is in dispute, more so than what's in it. Objections to its content are inevitable of course but secondary. So, take a simple high res photograph of it. Obviously, for use and exchange between departments and states, just wanting to convey the data, the PDF is the desired format in which to exchange. But birthers are very special people who are going to "need" more assurance than the word of the State of Hawaii that their documents are genuine. They will want to radio carbon date the fucking paper, to Xray the ridges of the state seal comparing it against other BCs of the same vintage, and to dig up the bodies of all medical personnel and state officials that could have been involved at the time, to check for signs of Kenyan voodoo and I don't know what.

[TorchTheWitch]

11. this whole BC thing is just barking stupid

Why is anyone talking about this as though it's some kind of real issue? This has been a loony distraction from Day One when the first buffoon made mention of it. Obama long ago gave to the powers that be whatever documentation was required to establish his legitimacy to run for Pres., and it was accepted. THE END. When he won the Pres. race, he was accepted and legitimately sworn in by the head dude of the highest court in the land. THE END 2.0.

It's FAR TOO LATE and FAR TOO STUPID to be crying about pretend BC issues. Obama was never required to make his BC public, and he probably never should have since all it's done is create more lunacy. Why the piss is anyone wasting time talking about this at all particularly talking about it like it's anything but the barking nuttiness it's ALWAYS been? IT DOES NOT MATTER. You may as well waste time and energy being all concerned that he may be wearing mismatched socks or sneezes only twice in succession instead of three times.